Tag Archives: Toronto Police Services Board

(This article was published in the Toronto Star and in the Huffington Post on April 14 and 15, 2015.)

“Fair and bias-free policing.”

That was the promise of Toronto’s Chief of Police less than a year ago. At the time, Chief Bill Blair was hailing the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER) report. According to Chief Blair, the report was a “comprehensive review.” It was written by the police and made recommendations on how to eliminate racial profiling and bias from policing in Toronto.

While many felt that the report did not go far enough, Chief Blair echoed the sentiments of Professor Atiba Goff of the Los Angeles Centre for Policing Equity, who said that PACER “is about as good as you can ask for.” The Chief signaled his and the force’s intention to implement the recommendations of the report, including one that required officers to issue “receipts” to those residents (disproportionately young black or brown men) whom they stopped and questioned, even if they were not linked to an offence.

That particular measure proved incredibly effective: the requirement to issue receipts resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of random stops, proving that most of those stops were not essential for public safety, and that, more importantly, officers who are held accountable are less likely to stop and harass people without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

The goal of the PACER report was to make Toronto police a “world-leader” in bias-free policing. And in committing to its goals, the Chief made the promises that were morally and ethically required of him. He asserted, “We do not tolerate racism or racial profiling in the Toronto Police Service…It is essential that we do everything possible to ensure that bias does not influence our decisions.” [Emphasis is mine.]

But in the 10 months since Chief Blair wrote those promising words in a Toronto Star opinion piece, the police have reverted to denial and resistance. Inexplicably, the Chief and his boss, the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB), which includes Toronto’s new mayor, participated in a closed mediation. The result: the TPSB is now set to vote, this Thursday, on a policy that is offensive and insidious. This new policy not only eliminates the requirement to issue receipts, but it takes us back even further than we were a few months ago.

So we’ve gone from refusal, to resistance, to resignation, to recognition of the problem, to partial resolution (the PACER report) and now, to retraction, recalcitrance and regression.

Where is the commitment to a fair and equitable society, to bias-free policing?

When our police force and the TPSB were initially faced with undeniable proof of racial profiling, they could shield themselves with claims of, “We did not know the extent of the bias. We are not racist.” Indeed, in the PACER report, the police drew a valid distinction between bias and racism. And Chief Blair, in his Toronto Star piece, declared, “We are not racist but we are all human. The science of bias teaches us that even the best-intentioned, most decent and honourable people can be influenced by the implicit bias we all have.”

But the police can no longer hide behind good intentions and claims of “mere” bias. We know that racial profiling occurs and that it is discriminatory and harmful. While human nature makes us prone to bias, institutional policies can either prevent that bias or promote it. We had taken some steps to rectify the problem. And now we have reverted.

When we reverse our efforts to eliminate or drastically reduce bias, and come up with mechanisms that will condone it, we are no longer “merely” biased. We are now something much worse. We are knowingly, recklessly, and irresponsibly permitting racial profiling. This is institutionalized racism.

Is this the wish and the legacy of the Chief who once said, “Good enough won’t cut it” when addressing racial profiling? Is this going to be the legacy of a Mayor who ran for “One Toronto?” Is this the direction of an oversight body and a civilian boss, the TPSB, that was once committed to diversity and fair treatment?

If the Board approves the Chief’s proposal on Thursday, the answer will be a loud and alarming, “Yes.”

After a lengthy investigation, the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), Ontario’s civilian body responsible for handling complaints against the police, has concluded that police officers unlawfully jumped on, kicked, beat, shoved, threatened, mocked, and broke the nose of Adam Nobody while apparently affecting an arrest during the 2010 G8/G20 events in Toronto. In a report released on Friday, January 20th, the OIPRD asserts that the use of such force was excessive and discreditable conduct, and recommends that the officers involved face disciplinary hearings.[i]

But the OIPRD’s report and recommendation come more than six months after the organization retained the file, which means that the officers involved will not automatically face a disciplinary hearing—the Toronto Police Services Board, the civilian oversight body for the Toronto Police, must effectively approve that such a hearing be held.

And what is the response of the police union to the recommendation that the officers who beat a handcuffed and sometimes unconscious Nobody face disciplinary hearings? “We stand behind them,” said Toronto Police Union President Mike McCormack.[ii] He has urged the Police Services Board not to hold disciplinary hearings against the officers, citing the 6 month delay.

It is no surprise that officers take advantage of every tool provided by the law. But given that it is the police’s job to ensure that people who commit unlawful acts actually face the consequences of their actions and are held accountable under the law, we are justified in asking, “Why is it that when the police commit unlawful acts, the union demands that we let it go?” We might be excused for reacting indignantly to the union’s stance—a stance which seeks to put police officers above the law.

And what can we expect from the Police Services Board? It’s the Board that now has the power to decide whether a notice of hearing can be served on the officers in question. In effect, without the Board’s approval, there will be no hearing. The Police Services Act states that, in order to grant its approval, the Board must be of the opinion that “under the circumstances,” it was reasonable to delay serving the notice of hearing. [iii]

Surely the circumstances do exist here. The case is one that involves important public policy issues dealing with the public’s right to protest, policing such protests, police tactics, and police officers’ beliefs in how citizens who, in their opinion, have broken the law, can be treated.

Furthermore, the volume of evidence that the OIPRD investigators had to sift through was high- significantly more than evidence from the run-of-the mill complaints that make their way to the OIPRD. The OIPRD interviewed the complainant, interviewed or read reports from 5 other civilian witnesses, 12 police officer witnesses, and the 8 respondent police officers. It reviewed audio and video evidence, four “volumes” of information from the Special Investigations Unit, the notebook entries of the police officers, and numerous other pieces of evidence. This voluminous amount of evidence surely justifies a longer investigation period.

Finally, as the report makes no reference to the topic, we do not know if some of the “delay” during the investigation resulted from the slow or reluctant co-operation of the police witnesses, themselves.

When the legislature set out the limitation period it was likely contemplating the more common and straight-forward cases of complaints against one or two police officers. It is unlikely that the legislature intended a 6-month limitation to apply to cases where many police officers, under an atmosphere of confusion and “mayhem,” as some witnesses described, were the subject of complaints.

In essence, the limitation period ensures that investigations are conducted efficiently and do not drag on indefinitely. There is no blanket rule preventing investigations from continuing beyond the 6-month period. Under the circumstances, the OIPRD’s report has been produced in a timely manner. But union President Mike McCormack wants the TPSB to rule otherwise.

McCormack’s position is offensive. It demands that police officers who have engaged in illegal (and arguably, criminal) acts not be held professionally accountable for their conduct. It perpetuates the negative and justified public perception that police officers protect one another no matter how egregious the acts of their members may have been. The union’s position undermines the credibility of the police and the public’s trust and confidence in the police force. In the end, though, the law allows McCormack to voice his opinion, but the same law grants the Police Services Board the power to approve that the hearings be held.

So what should we do? How should citizens who want to ensure that the police conduct their job honourably and without resorting to unnecessary violence react? Can we do anything to prevent the further erosion of the public’s confidence in the police? Can we ensure that the Police Services Board grants its approval for the hearings?

Yes. In this case, there is tangible, simple and effective action that we can all take. We must let the T.P.S.B. and, in particular the three Toronto City Councillors who serve on the T.P.S.B., know that the officers who abused their power in their dealings with Mr. Nobody must be held accountable.[iv] At the very least, they should face a disciplinary hearing. Write to the Board and to the City Councillors and ask that they use their discretion to hold the police officers accountable for their actions, and not to protect officers who grossly abuse their powers. And then, if and when the T.P.S.B. does approve that the hearings be held, follow up to ensure that the disciplinary hearings lead to meaningful consequences.

Demand that our law enforcement agents abide by the laws that they enforce.